City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is now 6 o'clock and I would like to call the city council work session meeting to order. I'd like to call on Katie Henry, our finance director, to present our topic for tonight. Thank you, Mayor. as soon I need to make. Yep, that's what I thought was happening. Okay, we should be better now. Can you hear through the microphone? Not very well.

How about now? Yes,

the posture won't be as good, but that's okay. Okay, let me get the screen sharing going and we will get to where we need to be. There we go. So this evening we are here to talk about ARPA funds or funds formerly known as ARPA as the case may be um since we no longer have the restriction to these restrictions to these. Um so our goals for this evening are to update all of you on the current status of all of our ARPA projects. Um go over which projects have been already completed. um determine some logistics. Basically, we will need to bring an ARPA budget amendment. And so, we want to cover the numbers, make sure that we're all in agreement before I write the resolution so that we can bring that um in April. um and then determine which projects are one-time projects that would be more appropriately um paid for with ongoing funds rather than these these ARPA funds. So, is there money that we could return back into the pot that could be better used on some one-time projects? And then what do we want to appropriate the remaining balance for? um we are at the point where we need to include things in the fiscal next year's budget or we won't be able to include them. Um and so this is our chance to kind of bring everything together for the ARPA funds and see if there are any new

projects that staff may not have considered or that weren't in the list of ARPA projects that we want to add. So, first of all, where are we starting from? We started with 7.7 million dollars. Um, and we've allocated out at the be at the very beginning, so back in 2021, allocated out 6.69 million in the first resolution. And then we've had a series of different things that have added to what we were able to spend. Um, and these have been increased sometimes through a resolution, sometimes through awarding a contract. Um, last year we added 151,000 through the budget process, but not a separate contract. So this again is similar to what I brought you about a year ago which is a a resolution to true everything up so that we know exactly where everything is and that will come to you next time. So the remaining that currently on paper shows unallocated is 361,653. So what have we done with these funds so far? This first list of completed projects tells you all of the projects that have been completed and that are in line with what is in the documented resolution. The these are projects that have already been brought to you and tred up what we did last time. Um I would love for these to just be in a completed section that we don't need to report on anymore except to possibly be an appendix of completed projects. So when we bring any the our third quarter for example report

the next time these won't need to be a part of it except just to be listed out. Then we have completed projects with adjustments. These are specifically ones that I'm bringing to you tonight and that if we are all in agreement, these will go on the resolution to modify the budget. the ARPA budget um by the amount in the proposed adjustment column. So the ARPA grant manager was a position that we didn't end up keeping. Um there was not a need to have that position once all of the requirements of the reporting of the um ARPA funds was over. So now these are really unrestricted funds as far as the federal government is concerned. Um and so we could return $32,774 of that. Um the third street project, it's $7. It's purely a clerical thing. Um the financial forecasting software, uh I requested that we not renew it. The we were not using that software. Um and um so we asked if we could get out of the contract rather than pay it. And so those are savings from just not not finishing out the contract. They were amenable to it. So um we can return that. The storm water capacity projects, these the project that we were able to complete came in under budget. Um there is more work to be done. We'll talk about that a little bit later. Um, I'm trying to make these very separate things of what have we completed and then we'll have one big pot we can talk about later. So that 141,000 will go back into the the pot. Then the

innovation center that had a lot of different funding sources, but this pot is um came in under by 4,000. And then the mobile rec station actually came in over budget um because of the savings on the other ones. My ask is if we can use the ARPA funds to make that project whole um so that we can just close that out, make the general fund whole and and be done with that. So that's fine. Any would anyone have a tr have a problem with that? Let me say no. to put that on the resolution. Not did councelor,

let me ask you a question real quick. Could you explain to everyone what the mobile rec station is for those that don't know why it went over or what it is? What it is? Yeah. What it is? It is a um I believe it's the the library. Go ahead, Adam. The mobile wreck station's a transit van that Park and Wreck has that deploys uh different wreck things in the summertime. Uh especially with our like summer kickoff series and then it had a wrap put on it and that's why it's a little bit over. Does any counselor have any heartburn over $4,000? No, I'd support that.

You're good. Okay. Any questions on any of the completed projects that we just discussed? No questions. Okay. So, with the money returned back from these projects, that brings us to 556,000 in the ARPA pot that can be allocated out. So, what are we actively working on with ARPA funds? We have in park maintenance the systemwide irrigation project that's currently ongoing. Um that is actively being worked on right now. Um it should be completed this summer. So it may be completed before the end of the fiscal year. It may be completed in July. It's one of those that's going to kind of straddle the the fiscal year um depending on weather and contractors and all of that. Um, we anticipate it to use the majority of the budget, if not all of that budget. The community center elevator repairs, my understanding is it has used the budget. It is it is complete, but we haven't finalized paying out everything. So, we're right at that. We just got the last bill. Um, so that is done. We have an elevator at the community center. It is working and we just have the paperwork to do. So, that is great news. Um, the Discovery Meadows Splash Pad is another one that is in parks and that is currently being worked on with the target of having that completed this summer. Um, I don't know if we do. We want to get any update on that or

I personally would love an update on that one. I I thought we might. Yeah. Thank you, ma'am. Um, we're right in the process of reviewing the 90% plans right now. And so when that's done, we'll be ready to to finalize it. It should go out to bid sometime midappril. I'll be back to council um first or second meeting in April with a request for a cooperative purchase agreement to purchase equipment and should be um off and rolling. We'll see how the bids come in. Councelor Peralta, thanks. Uh do you have an expectation that that'll be ready for the summer or I think if if it's ready this summer, it would be late summer, sir.

Councelor Cunningham. Uh I think I came in um when most of this had already had been uh taken care of, but we did move or remove the sand pit. That's part of the scope. Okay. So it's still it's still there. That that's that's a key factor because right that sand pit sort of plays havoc with the machinery. Okay. Thank you. That's part of the scope of work. Who do you any other questions on that project? Oh, Adam.

Uh, Renshai, correct me if I'm wrong, but with the construction timeline, we would be better served to kind of plan to construct that after the summer so they can use the existing water feature during the summer. If we kicked off construction right now, we would risk not having a water feature during the summer. there. There'll be some crossover. Okay. Just uh water and lights on board with doing another pass through this year for that so we can maintain a water feature for the community during the summertime. You're just going to get your new water feature a little bit later. Okay. May I ask a question, mayor? Yes.

Call city manager. Do you have any idea how much uh since we're doing the pass through on the water, how much are we spending on water? Mr. Uh, we actually don't pay water and light for water, so Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're spending nothing. Oh, perfect. John could tell you all that. Said that out loud. Yep. I forgot. That question was asked. No, you're kidding. You're fine, Dan. The

next project is the emergency manager. This was paying for a position. That position will end at the end of this fiscal year. Um, so there are um there will be a small amount of savings. We're we'll wait to close that out until all of the salaries have been paid out and and all of that at the end of the year. Um it's not a lot that will be left over. Um then the ADA transition plan, we're expecting to spend it all, but it won't all be spent in this fiscal year. Um, again, that will go into next year and probably through December or so before it's completed.

Let me go back. I have a question about the emergency manager. So, it's ending at the end of this fiscal year. Will we have a work session to get presented what is completed by that person? Uh, we can. Yeah, I just know that there were plans there that he was working on. Correct. Yeah, there is. And there's a exercise you guys are doing the first part of April, I believe.

Yes. As part of our OEM grant, we have to complete a tabletop exercise uh internally with staff. And so, we're going to be doing that in April. Uh the coupe, so the continuity of operations plan and the emergency operations plan are completed. Um we've been I've been talking with emergency Jeff about um how we're going to present that to the council. uh we're not required to have you adopt it. There are some potential grants in the future that it's good if it's adopted by the council, but it's not necessarily required. So, um we're trying to figure out exactly what the best way to go about that is, but the plans are completed and we can definitely hold a work session to summarize what's in there.

Okay. And if it can't be done by the end of this fiscal year, I understand. I just would like to see it at some point. Yep. We'll do. And then those plans will go online as well with correct redactions for parts that we don't want to share out with the general public on some of our responses. But all right, thank you. Any other questions? Nope. Okay, we're ready to go on. Okay.

Um then we have the technology and conference rooms. This is a project that it has been working on um that the hope is is to get this wrapped up and and completed by this summer as well. The MUN court software we have finally gotten through the queue to be put into another queue to be assigned an implementation manager. So the good news is we've made it to this quarter's group. So we will be assigned one in this quarter. We are supposed to get an implementation manager April May. So the good news is they haven't forgotten about us. We did just get this news. The bad news is we still don't have a name which means we still don't have a meeting. Um we've done everything that we can to get ready for it. It has been working with Tyler um on getting everything set up in the background so that we're ready to just hit the ground running. Um court has been looking at other court software. We've been looking at processes, procedures, and we're um doing some field trips to other cities to see how they're running their courts with the software. Everything we can do short of actually implementing the software. So that should start in May, May time frame. Um, and then we have the culturally competent communications and translations. This has been paying for a lot of different things. One of the things was iHeart um that we're not proposing to continue um in um there's only 7,900 left in it. There are a few translations that are actively being

worked on. So, just wrapping up a little bit of work on that for some of our forms and things like that. And then that will close out that that project. So, those those are all of the active projects we have going on right now. Any other questions on the active projects? No. Okay. Um then we have projects that we are proposing to discontinue. Um they are active in in theory in the spreadsheets that you've seen in the reports you've seen. Um but for one reason or another were recommending they be discontinued. So the first one is the neighborhood park renovations. In the last report you got, I believe we said there was 13,000 spent or something and that was years ago. Um, and the James Edition and Kingwood were included in the original bond scope and so the the staff stopped the work on them because it was going to be included in the bond work. So it was included in ARPA and then it was also included in the bond work and so the work was halted on it. they were included in the pros plan and the funding needed by the pros plan for these parks. Um, and Mr. Renshaw can correct me and provide any additional information, but my understanding is the uh work needed in the pros plan was significantly more than the ARPA funds we had awarded. Um, then there's questions of SDC's and what other funding and so it's just kind of been put on hold. Um, and so there's a question of would it make better sense to use these funds for something else for the parks or for some other reason

rather than continuing with these two parks specifically? May there council um remind me James edition edition is a part of the linear park system. It says just to the west of Cypress. If you head west of Cypress out the path, you'll see that there's a basketball court. I I'm sorry. I I said west. That should be east. It sits between Cypress and AG.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um I can't speak to James Edition, but I can speak to Kingwood. That park needs help. It is the only park in that neighborhood. Um, you have to cross a bridge to get to any other park. Um, it is woefully underserved by us and um, I understand that there may be some bond money at some point, but I also understand that we're trying to rightsize that particular bond. Um, I would plead that we keep this in, um, and start sooner than later on the renovations for Kingwood. Like I said, I can't talk to James Addition specifically, but I I feel like this is an underserved community that really does need some attention. Councelor Gary. Uh,

a couple questions. Um, I agree. Want to invest in that park. For what it's worth, on that side of the bridge, we do have another park, Bando River. It's it's a mini mini slice park. It's easy to blink and miss it on a culde-sac, but there is another tiny little guy over there. Um, what were the Do we have any specifics on what the James edition and Kingwood editions were? cuz I know the line item in the pros plan for each of those is 3/4 of a million dollars and as generic as you know play equipment replacement and play surface replacement. Did we have any specifics on on what we're going to do for these this 250 for each?

Originally the these two little projects were conceived well before the pros plan. Okay. And the concept at that time was to replace the existing really small play structures. And I think as the pros plan emerged and went through a much more public process, the community desire was for bigger bigger scope projects at both those parks. Sure. That's the difference. My concern, and I certainly agree with councelor Cunningham, my concern though is that at at a4 million dollars, I don't know that we're going to be able to accomplish what's in the pros plan. Certainly at both facilities. Um I I agree with with Scott. If if I was going to rank him, I'd put Kingwood ahead of James edition for sure, but I just don't know if this gets us where we need to get to.

Okay. In light of that, that's why we had this conversation. Would that money um be better suited towards some known projects, which I think we're going to wind up with with the with the ADA plan. That's kind of the genesis of that whole conversation. Yeah. Uh thank you. I I'm I'm in favor of rolling the 2494 into the larger remainder and looking at keeping and and expanding some investment in the parks going off this list and doing something that we can reasonably hit with those dollars incl and and specifically keeping Kingwood as a focus in that area.

So I think let's go through what all these are and then at the end kind of give opinions on what we think because there's a few things to talk about. So we'll keep that note councelor Cunningham.

Okay. Then we have the HRDI implementation. The main costs that are remaining in in this category. Well, there there's two pieces. One is the recurring NEOGV costs which is recurring. It's going to be every year. It's part of having HR. Um so better suited with an ongoing revenue source than a one-time revenue source. Um the other is the signage um ADA ADA signage I believe or DEI wayinding wayfinding signage.

Uh that 25,000 for the signage in there would be for the two big large city of McMinnville signs. one uh would be refurbished. Uh Renchaw could speak to more specifics, but there's some lighting dollars in there, too.

The you're talking about the signs for Three-Mile Lane in the south end of town. Just real quickly, what we've run into there is um one of the signs is is beyond beyond repair. And so, as it turns out, and the mayor will probably remember this, we used to have a very large entry sign on the north end of town where um Wilco now sits. Well, as it turns out, the gentleman that actually built that sign when that area was was changed, it's in his garage. True story. In Jerome Blankship's garage, or excuse me, Jerry Blankship's garage. And so, we now work with Jerome, his son.

And so, what we propose is to take that large sign, refurbish it. It would go on the south end of town towards Lowe's. That sign that's there would be pulled out, been refurbished, and it would be put at the three- mile lane location just because we're size constrained at three mile lane and not so much at the other end of town. That's kind of what that little sign Tetris deal is. So great. So I was I was waiting that 25,000 for signages is four. So that would return 38,700 after that signage amount is taken out of that project. Okay. Question. Councelor Peralta.

How much are the carrying costs for Neo Gun? I believe it's about 14,000 or actually no, that's the piece that we were paying with this. Um, didn't we find out? No, he's not here. I think we said it was about 60,000 a year total, wasn't it? or full all the neo was like 55. So the this HR component that was coming out of this line item is 145 and then the rest of it's about 40 about 40,000. Yeah.

So I with help of Crystal and Katie wanted to remove any ARPA uh spending that was for ongoing cost so we had a true picture for our budget forecast for our going forward years. and that we weren't relying on ARPA to fund ongoing costs and then we get to that two to three years out and we're trying to come up with money because we weren't forecasting that in our model. So I wanted to true everything up so it's in our model going forward so we know where we need to be. Good. I'm glad you did that.

Another project we have in the model is an up is the update to parks and open space master plan. Um, we had a conversation last year about funding funding for the bond and what should we put in and what should we take out of general fund dollars and what should we take out of ARPA money and um, so we have an invoice from PRAIS that was paid with general fund dollars based on that conversation and we used this project to pay it's like 42,000 something from ARPA dollars. Um, this is another project that is kind of being peacemeal out now to other projects since the project itself is is completed. Um, the request that I'm what I'm wondering is if we could use the project funds to pay practice for all the work that was done already this year. So journal entry the the funds from ARPA to cover those and then return um the remaining 55,000 56,000 to the ARPA bucket in order to use it for other things rather than

comments. I I'm confused about the amounts to pay out and what's going to remain after you do that. So there's 15,000 that we paid practis out of general fund and I'm asking if we can reimburse the general fund from the ARPA funds for what we already paid practis. So is the 55 before or after? The 55 is after that is paid. Okay. That's what would remain. And the 55 is unspent funds. The the master plan came in under correct. That's unspent funds. Got it. So So you're paying out 15 and returning just under 56.

Yeah. Okay.

Looks like consensus for these three. Are you good with that, Dan?

Okay, perfect. Okay. And then on the budget software, the implementation will be complete at the end of this fiscal year. Um the payments, this is another one of those that we were going to use the rest of it for the ongoing payment for the following year. Um so it's one we want to return to the pool, use ongoing revenues to pay for the software for the further out years instead of the implementation since it won't be the implementation anymore. Um so those are the the ones that would be discontinued. So, if we were to include all four of those, that would be 392,000 more that we could add to the pot. So, if we added all of those together, that would give us the 948,000 um that we could then spend the rest of the work session discussing how it could be used. Okay.

Any more questions on projects we've already gone over?

No. Okay. So, what comes next? Um there is one project that was requested in the um by the departments in the budget and there is it's a stormline replacement at linear park. Um they're requesting 350,000. We do not have the money in the general fund to cover it. So this is an uncovered project that will not happen unless we use ARPA funds for it. is basically the status where we're at in looking at expenses as it stands right now.

Can someone explain the project?

I can start and then James can correct me. Um but essentially um there's a storm line running through West Linear Park between Cypress and Filbert. that section of the park there. It doesn't go the whole length, but that line has been failing multiple times over the years and it fails, creates a sinkhole. We have to repair the line, fix the sinkhole, then it fails like 10 feet away and it's just continually happening. And since it's outside of the rideway, we can't use street funds, which is usually what we use to repair stormline failures. So, um, that's pretty much the quick and dirty of that one. It's going to continue to fail and we'll eventually replace the whole thing one patch at a time, but we were looking to just kind of have it all done now and not continue to cause damage to the park.

So, how much how many linear feet do you think that is that you're going to repair? And did you say between Cypress and Filbert? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, it's about 6 to 700 feet of pipe. Would would there be uh I've gone by there a lot. It it's really um pretty gnarly and overgrown. Would there be some, for lack of better term, wet wet wetland planning uh and and replanting efforts going along there as a part of ripping all that up to to help, you know, just environmentally manage flood waters in the future?

Yeah. So, the project did consider what we'd be putting back. David might be able to speak to a little bit better what our general plan for that would be, how we would repair the park afterward. What you're talking about, sir, is the pond to the east or the west, excuse me, with all the um willow. Yeah. Yeah. The the western most extent of that jan there's an open pond where the outfall comes from the west and and it's been overgrown. Yeah. And so I I don't think I don't think that's part of the scope of this. Okay. I I think this scope up here is to replace the pipe. Yeah, the pipe doesn't go that far. The the pipe kind of starts just after that. That's where the inlet is. If I were to pull this up on GIS, would I see that pipe on there?

Um Okay, cool. See it? Thanks. As you're walking through the park, if you come just past that pond, you'll see a couple field inlets. And what those are, they basically as that pond overflows, it then drops into that pipe. That's how that works. And so you you can see where that pipe starts with the the field in it closest to the pond is a start of the pipe. Understood. Any other questions about that project? Yeah, I had a question. The Okay.

The area that you're proposing is about 1,000 ft uh using the Google measuring device. The there's still another 1500 feet left over in the linear park. Would you say that west of Filbert and east of Cyprus don't need replaced and or it's not there?

Um those parts haven't been failing. Um but like this section has and so it it doesn't reach all the way to Filbert. It's so starting at Cyprus going west it ends right kind of near where Jasmine Court um that culde-sac is. It's about twothirds of the way. um those other pipes will, you know, further to the east will probably need replacement in the future, but they're not having the failures that we're experiencing right now. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions about that project?

Just a question for the board. Did Did you guys need a a response on this 350 tonight from folks? Let's go over all of the projects and then we can talk about what we want to bring forward as the packet for that full 900 amount. So another the project that we have talked about is the um ADA transition plan is going to require a lot of projects. Um and so one of the things that Mr. Renshaw was was talking about was that there are a lot of parks projects that are going to be in there and we don't have any money to start addressing those projects and so with the funds that were attributed to the two parks previously. The question was, could we repurpose that for specific projects identified in the ADA transition plan um for those parks or for other parks or however you as counselors would determine what was needed, but the the staff asked that we please at least present it as a possibility. um because there isn't going to be a need for funds to take care of those items

and that won't be until late fall because that's not that's when the report should come back to us is Octoberish I believe that I don't know Jeff may know the timing better than I do this morning. Yeah, we were talking um report Yeah. in the fall and probably wrapping it up after council discussions sometime about December. Yeah. So, it' be next spring at the soonest that we do.

Uh, depending on what the repairs are. Yeah, it would probably be next spring if it's anything that's flat work like concrete or anything like that. If it's something with playground equipment or, you know, access to drinking fountains or things like that, it might be able to be done in the winter time, but would depend on what it is. There's um we've seen one report I believe for Thompson Park and it had 86 it was an 86 page report just for Thompson which is not one of our largest parks. Um each each finding roughly has a two-page um standard response. So 40ome findings for Thompson. It's going to be like 10,000 pages.

Yeah, it's going to be significant today with all the details. So Okay. So, this is something to consider and we could be specific on how we if we chose to do this, how we chose to do it. Right. Exactly.

Um then we have community security barricades. Um rising concern in the current um climate. Um and Chief Wood has uh looked at some barricades and priced some out. Um and so the option would be the options could be to set aside the full amount to purchase um 16 units and he will have to provide information on what what that means as far as units go. um we could do half of the number um and then another year later a year later or when we had other funds do the other half um and that would be 115 to do half of the number.

Thank you. Chief Wood, do you want to show us what you're talking about? Claudia is going to share her screen.

Okay. in in the planning for several of our major events in the downtown cores like Alien Days, um cruising, um we have a space that's occupied by like Alien Days last year. The estimate was 25,000 plus people. We're immediately adjacent to some of the busiest streets in the community. One being a major highway and the barricades that we have been using to cordon off that area really just aren't sufficient. Um, these would significantly help increase the safety of those spaces until such time we could implement some more permanent fixtures in the street surfaces since those are the areas that we most frequently use for our community events. Um, these would help fill that gap. Plus, they're mobile and could be deployed just about anywhere in and around the city if if we uh needed them. Uh neighboring communities are also uh investing in these barriers. Uh we found two neighboring police agencies that also have invested in these barriers. So when and if we needed a mutual aid response for additional units, these would operate with those additional units as well. Um so 16 units uh plus all of the ancillary equipment that go with them to close off the street would um significantly increase the safety on third fourth streets for events like Alien Days cruising uh the Halloween uh trick-or-treating uh farmers market. Um they come on a

trailer. Uh they're hand deployable. Um, and something that I think we really need to invest in as a community to increase the safety of those spaces. Uh, like like Director Henry said, the current climate, there are concerns about intentional acts, but it doesn't even have to be an intentional act. where one drunk driver, one driver with dementia or some other issue from driving into these spaces that are occupied with people and having a a very significant tragedy. Can you tell me what size? I mean, this is one barrier right here that we're looking at. That's one.

How big is that? I mean, is one do one street?

No, one does not do one street. Yes, they're they're about the size of Think about the size of the chair that you're sitting in roughly. That that would be a a fair estimate. Maybe not quite the size of the chair, but they interlock with cables. They're designed so that when a vehicle hits the barrier, it actually goes up underneath the vehicle and disables it. So, four on a street, three or four? Three.

It's going to depend on the size and the width of the street, right? But a standard street like three to four. Three. Okay. Um, what about So right now I was asking Adam this earlier and but I'm going to ask you. Um, so putting those in place, do they get locked into place with the ca the cables? So they're not easily moved. Yeah, you you move them with a device. Think of it similar as a hand truck. So they are mobile by one person. They're not designed to be stationary or locked into place. They're designed so that when they're struck by a vehicle, they tip up and underneath the vehicle to disable it. So, what

you're not going to pick it up and put it in the back of your pickup and steal it. Okay. So, I know some of the events at the end of the event, um, volunteers take the current barricades and just slide them to the side. What would be the case with these? These would probably have to be set up and taken down by city staff. So it would possibly add cost because that would most likely be on a weekend. There would be some cost associated with the setup and deployment. Uh there's also some opportunities for cost recovery for leasing, renting these out as part of events

and they'd be stored at public works on a trailer. So are we having to purchase a trailer to go with it? trailer and all of the other transportation and setup takedown materials are part of the package. So, um the only thing that you need um is a 3/4tonon pickup to tow them and public works owns several of those. So, if there's 16, is there one trailer for all 16? There's two trailers, eight on a trailer, per trailer. Okay, councelor Cunningham.

Um, thank you. The I recently was in Chicago where they have these in spades. Um, and they did seem fairly easy to maneuver lease kit set up pretty quickly as well. Um, so and being someone who's worked with the MDA on many, many, many of those events, this has always been a concern of mine is that um, at any moment we could have not a terrorist situation, like you said, someone experiencing a medical situation and and it would be horrific downtown. Um, and the other thing that um, and this can be a sidebar later, but I was told today how much, um, we are going to be needing to, well, the MDA and and other businesses are going to be paying for um, the level one threat uh, of having the terrorist level one threat police. Is that that's news to you?

I'm not exactly sure. The MDA was told that they're going to be paying $10,000 for the UFO festival this year. So, we've had a contract with the UFO festival, the MDA and McMinammens in the past to um recover the cost of overtime, right, for the police department to come in and staff that event specifically. I'm not sure if that's what you're

Yeah. the the I was just told by one of the the beer gardens that they were going to be asked to pay um a certain amount this year because in their mind they the community had achieved a level one threat is that so that all right I will figure that out with maybe we should talk offline to make sure that we're not talking across concepts but u no problem no problem we have had an ongoing contract with MDA to recover the cost of the overtime time for the police presence for those events. Um, similar to what we do with the air show and other largecale events in the community. Councelor Gary,

uh, thanks for looking into these. These are great. Having been a part of events, I think safety is tantamount. I can I can think of two or three traffic related incidents that have happened that have been totally accidental and luckily haven't been loss of life, been just property damage in the downtown area. Um I guess my thought would be because we can um build in cost recovery to the ongoing operations of and uh cost for running events in town. Uh my thought would be a little bit more uh a departmental cost that then gets paid back through those permit uh and overall costs for events. So um less an ARPA cost and more a departmental that recoups that back in that light item. um if if if we want to invest in ARPA funds in this so be it. But I think I think it makes more sense a little bit as a departmental investment that gets paid back. But and that's just my perspective.

Do you have a response or anybody? I do I don't have the funds in my budget to cover the cost of the barriers u for the initial capital outlay to purchase them.

Um it just doesn't exist. Councelor Gary, to the point of cost recovery, um that could make some of these events cost prohibitive to have it all. Um so as far as cost recovery goes, we'd be better served to look at cost recovery of renting these to other agencies and other communities that might want to use them once or twice a year that don't overlap on our existing events. But as as far as putting a you know $2 to $4,000 number on top of any special event permit, um probably isn't the most realistic for some of the events we're talking about here.

Yeah, fair enough. And if we're subsidizing public safety via these, that's a great investment. I'm sure I heard what you said. Oh. Uh if ultimately these ARP funds are investing and subsidizing public safety for all these events, then that's a investment I'm willing to make. Gotcha. Thanks. Okay. Is there more?

Yes. Have to get to the get to the share button again. Okay. So, we have just proposed these three projects. But of course you can propose other projects that you have. Um the bottom line is if we want to spend any of this 900,000 either in fiscal year 26 or in fiscal year 27, we need to be able to move forward with the administrative part of that of getting it into the budget and and moving that forward. So what we would appreciate from you this evening is a conversation and to settle on what should we bring back in that next ARPA um resolution that would say here are the projects that will be open going forward so that we can budget out the funds and and move forward with those. So before we discuss more of what's on the table here and because are there other projects that a counselor would like to bring forward? Councelor Kerry.

Uh thanks. I had I had some ideas. Um the first chunk would be from the just from the parks plan itself. Um looking at the costs associated with it. um uh or or pulling out known projects from larger project investment tabs of park of stated parks. But basically um an investment in a Portland loo style bathroom in any of you know West Hills or Star Mill or Airport Park I think would be um much needed. Uh some of the smaller things on there are wayfinding at airport park. um Ty Park maintenance vehicle access um to allow us to get down there um and and repair that park on a more uh helpful clip uh path from Shagguin Park to Grand Haven and to connect the people there. And I know that development may be going in and maybe taking care of that or we would need to put that in as part of that development and that would allow kids to move a little more safely through that area. Um, just for what it's worth, um, the amphitheater in City Park is only tabbed at $325,000. So, we could knock that out with some of this ARPA money. That's a fun project. Uh, Joe Dancer lighting is listed on there and Wartman Park Wayfinding. Uh, aside from some park projects, uh, some things I was going to throw out. Um, also in bathrooms. I guess I'm very invested in bathrooms, but just a I know we've always talked about a downtown bathroom. Um, would love to be able to see that. and then uh a little bit more wild um maybe picking off some of the projects from the Highway 99 active transportation system plan um for pedestrian safety. And then lastly, I know we've always uh uh had a hard time with our building and planning requirements of um uh property owner development of their sidewalks and bumped into sort of um emergency need for like if a house burns down and they still have to repair their sidewalk and they don't have funds for

that or just it's a really blighted area neighborhood that isn't going to see investment and the sidewalks have gotten worse and worse and worse. um maybe setting up money for a fund to be able to start replacing some really bad sidewalks in really needy areas. Um so those were some of the things I I had thought about of current projects we could do that we could put some of this money towards for a onetime use. Okay. I appreciate you putting thought into councelor Takulski.

Yeah, I appreciate your exuberance and the I would say excitement for the projects because realistically those are all great things. I I guess I would counter a bit and say we're going into a budgeting season. Uh we were running a deficit last year and while we would like to have a lot of these things, it we keep talking about how how to spend the money. We're al we haven't said anything about the budgeting season coming up and how we might save so that we don't end up in as much of a significant budget. Is it required that we spend this money? It is not required. I believe there's a history in McMinnville that I'm not overly familiar with on these funds. Um my understanding is that it is up to the city on how we spend them because we've met all of the federal requirements. Um and that council had a list of projects. We've gone through those projects. We've been working on them. And that's what has got us to where we are right now. We had appropriated things out. We're down to the last 300,000 of it. Um, and now the question is, okay, with all the stuff that's left from these, where do we go from here? Um, and so we could establish a reserve for future computers. we could establish use it to establish our capital outlay and and you know put that $1,000 make it from ARPA funds so that we don't go down another thousand in our operating budget. Those are things that could be done. Um, one thing to remember is that every time that we continue to track these, when we do these little projects, it takes a huge amount of administrative

time to to monitor them. So my recommendation is that we identify the projects and then either unreserve the money in the sense that if we're putting it into a capital reserve, then we put it in the capital reserve and it just becomes a capital reserve. Or if we put it into a park project, then we put it into that park project. But continually putting it in and then taking the few dollars out and putting them back in and taking them out is a very large administrative project that is um is using its own dollars.

Understand if we put it I mean I'm not saying put it in the general fund, but I do know that we're coming into the budgeting season and if we're figuring out ways to spend this money, it's $950,000 so it's not insignificant. It's also not a, you know, a lot for the city, but we're going to have to make cuts somewhere and we're going to have to make hard decisions during the budgeting process. And $950,000 is, you know, it's going to save some cuts. I know it's not an exciting way to uh spend your money because we're saving it, but it seems to be a little more responsible. But I mean, there's also things that we want to get done like the the water fountain, the Discovery Meadows, things like that are important. I get it, but I'm just throwing it out there.

Okay. No, thank you. Do you have another idea? Um, well, my idea would actually to be to put Kingwood back uh on the list and to um because it's been I guarantee deferred a lot longer than Linear Park. I just missed part of the linear park earlier conver conversation. So I don't know what damage the sinkhole is doing. So maybe um if that was something that I had a better understanding of and I apologize I had to see about

Yeah. So it's as these sink holes form, they form in the grass kind of north of the uh path and they get can get pretty large pretty fast in some of these bigger storms. Um if they get too big, they can start undermining the path and they'll get pretty expensive. Um so has have we had path undermined by singles so far? I don't think the path's ever been undermined yet, but the we've had to repair the grass area multiple times. Okay. Um

it is a big pipe. It's 24 in. though it holds a lot of water and it can undermine pretty quickly. And I mean I I I've walked it a few times the because there's also like the a ditch that runs alongside of a lot of it, right? Is that a part of the the piping area or is that on the other side of the path? Um yeah, there's kind of a combination of ways. Uh drainage is handled along the linear part. This section is doesn't have a parallel ditch, I believe. Oh, it does. Oh, okay.

What what what you're talking about, Scott, is in that system, there's a CMP pipe that runs underground. That's that's the main channel. There's a ditch or swale actually is a term for it. It's a Glen Glennling swell is what I call it. Um it hits the emergency overflow is what it right. So as water overflows that it as it climbs up those inlets I referred to earlier if the water level is such that it doesn't overwhelm that first inlet and that drops into the pipe that overwhelms and eventually gets to the last last inlet and we have had instances where it's actually over top Cyprus. The issue we have is that that's a that pipe was built in 1981.

So was 45 years old. average lifespan of a CMP pipe that's galvanized is 50 years and and it's essentially rotting away every time we fix it, the next section goes and it's just and and because we have a small crew, we maybe fix 50 ft a season. So I think eventually that's this that's that's the dilemma we're up against, right? So then it just creates a sinkle and a swell which is a safety hazard. It's a mowing hazard and just keeps it like domino effect. So the idea here is to to solve it with one fell swoop until the next section starts. Well, this this would cover all the CMP pipe that's in jeopardy. Oh, okay. Okay. Everything else has been

it basically runs from Cyprus from the from the um cover that goes underneath the roadway, right? Goes west to that pond that councelor Gary was talking about. That's all CMP pipe. Everything to the west past that is concrete pipe. M to the east it's it's open daylight ditch goes underneath AG crosses into Ash Meadows drops to another culvert and then then goes out through Russ Lane in that area and drops ultimately into the coine. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. So this this is the worst pipe in that system. It's also the oldest pipe. I hope that helps. Yeah. Yeah. I I still I'm going to be my champion of Kangwood.

Okay. Any other new ideas? Okay. Um I do have one. Um this is from councelor Chennowith. He was not able to be here tonight. He said, "We have the opportunity to move a major needed project forward and I think we should spend down the ARPA funds to this end. To date, I believe we have spent in excess of $1 million on the third street renovation project to get it to 32% design. At that spending pace, we are looking at almost $4 million just to design. I struggle understanding why it took and takes that much money to design 10 city blocks. I absolutely refuse to believe it will require another $2.6 million. Frankly, I think we should the cost less I frankly I think it should cost less than $1 million to complete design, allowing us to put one of the most desperately needed infrastructure projects in the in the position of 100% design. Once we get to 100% design, we can drastically increase the potential for unlocking grant funds. To that end, I would like to see the following. Allocate $1 million left in ARA funds to complete the third street design and whatever is remaining favor spending on either HVAC system at the library, upgrades to the senior center or on the linear park storm system. So in that um third street. So based on the cost the $850,000 um it sounds like to get to 60% design that is about $283,000 for a 10%.

Nope. Um I guess I need trying to figure out the dollar the dollar amount. Um, and that's based on the $1 million that was mentioned there, or that's based on So, if you have $850, which I actually I think it's more than that because we have to put in 97,000 and they say that that's going to get us another 30%.

That's my estimate roughly based on my knowledge of how these things work. That hasn't been an official estimate from ODOT yet. So, I will caveat that. That's an educated opinion from your public works director. So I think he's kind of thinking and I also want to think about this um as to the cost to finish that project and is it a project that you can shrink down so go from Baker to the tracks instead of to Johnson and be able to finish the design so that we can move forward with getting a build grant hopefully which it would do Third Street include of all the ADA that would be included in there. So, it would cover some of that.

I know that's a a lift for a project, but it's something on the table. Yeah. Something to consider um that it should cost 1 million or councelor Chennith believes it costs 1 million. That doesn't align with the total dollar amounts we've been saying. So, um I haven't done a cost estimate of what it would take to just do Baker to whatever, but um that hasn't been the project that was the 850 that we got from the uh beds was for that whole section. So, I don't Are we talking about was for the whole

the whole project from Adams all the way to Johnson? That was the project that we applied for. So parsing it down, there's there's steps we'd have to go through to do that. Um I don't want to I'd have to do a little bit more re So what you're saying is we'd have to complete the entire design, but yet when we talked about federalizing it and not having the funds, we talked about doing it in phases and maybe not having to do all the phases, but we still have to pay to design all those phases. Is that I just want to cl

I mean that's the process the city's been moving forward with and the pack's been moving forward with for a while now. Um I guess I would just caution making significant changes to the project scoping in this forum. Um that might be a larger discussion we need to have on the history of why we're at where we are with the project and everything. Um but if that's the overall council disc decision we can figure out a path forward. Um, mayor, if I can just, um, being the project manager for this since 2018 before it transferred to engineering, um, the the city and the community went through several years of very intentional decision making as to what the scope of this project would be, the length of the study area. Um, and you know, in terms of changing that, my recommendation would be we should have another intentional, thoughtful discussion with the community as to what that change would look like. Um, and in as part of that uh 3 to four year discussion, there was also discussion about phasing of the project because construction projects are very very harmful to existing vital business districts and a serial construction project is even more harmful, right? And so it's understanding the pros and cons of of our constraints and and the consequences and how to make that decision. And that was also done through that three to four year process. So I would encourage us as a city if this these are discussions we want to explore here in the near future. Let's explore them but let's explore them you know in a larger larger venue. Well, absolutely. Of course, we would do that, but I'm we have to talk about what we're going to do with the million dollars and if we're ready to allocate those right now or if it's a discussion to have.

And the the other thing I could add and James might What's that? Can I finish? Oh, sorry. Yes. It's just a big project that has been delayed. Um, and we don't know when it's going to happen. So, it was just a process that councelor Chennith wanted to put out there that can we complete this for the downtown. Is this a way to get there? Yeah, I think is a fair enough question.

I think it's a great question and I'm sorry, mayor I interrupted you. I didn't realize that. So, um uh what I was going to say is in in talking about whether there's the opportunity to leverage these additional funds into the design piece of this project. Uh when we originally made the federal request, the federal request was was for three to four million dollars thinking that that was going to be the remaining amount of design work that needed to be done so we could cover it and and what we got was 850. Um I don't know what it looks like now in terms of a design a projected design cost to get us to 100% but um I just wanted to let you know that. Thank you Peralta.

Thank you mayor. I just had a question about that because it sounded like Chris introduced a new number that hasn't really been discussed in this project which is I think this should cost a million dollars. Is that how I heard that worded to finish it but that doesn't seem to align with the analysis that we've had from staff to this point. My understanding is it's another three to four million to finish it based on and that those are estimates I understand but it it seems like there's a real disconnect between the assumption that councelor Chennowith made versus the reality of what we've been discussing is that

yeah I would just it's difficult for me to know exactly what he is considering for the design right now and what that million dollars is it might be correct it might not based on because he talked about shrinking the project so I haven't been able to do an analysis like that and so I would just say that um I'd be cautious to say yes we can finish it with a million dollars. It It's definitely a discussion worth having at the DEAS about using ARPA funds for it, but I don't know if a million dollars does or does not finish that. I just Where did the million dollars come from? I like where did that number from the invented or did it come from a place? No, I think based on the 850 and um

Oh, an extrapolation from that. Yeah, taking the percentage of what was assumed that we would get with 850. if you take oh 850 maybe 30% and then he said then you have 40% left and then I don't know if he's assuming federalized or not federalized under that scenario and things like that. So um it's if that's something that the council is interested in going for um yes we can work through figuring out exactly the cost and how much money could go where um but it would be difficult to give you a definite answer this evening. Absolutely. Councelor Cunningham.

Yeah. Being in in most of those meetings, what we've done so far is created the the design of the look of the street. um that does not take into consideration the design of all the infrastructure that would go underneath said street which is where you pay I would assume a lot more money than creating some pictures about how it looks. So, what we need is a functional street in many different ways. And I think Chris is woefully inaccurate when it comes to what it would take to design because you can design the beauty of a an architectural house, but when you build the house with the electrical and the plumbing and everything else, that is what goes into the specs that you actually build it with. So, I would just say that to take a shot that $1 million gets you all the way to complete when we're talking about one of the busiest, highest used streets outside 99. Uh, I think that we need to expect that it will cost us four times more than the 850,000 at this point. Councelor Chowski, did you have something you wanted to say? Okay. Any other comments? Okay. So, we have Do you have dollar amounts to everything that you have? I mean, we have a lot of things.

No, I don't. I mean, all the parks ones are pulled from the parks plan. So, the those dollars are next to them, but I could scratch off the uh amphitheater or not. Uh we were talking about the amphitheater a little bit earlier today and one thing that is that needs to be considered about the amphitheater in the pros plan it does say flood friendly.

Yeah. Um, with the Endangered Species Act findings recently, it's going to be much much harder to build anything in a flood plane now than it was when the Pros plan was adopted. So, just want to put that out there that that project costs flood to be able to build anything at all in the flood plane might be very difficult to do at this time. Fender blue butterfly friendly. Did you have a question? Yes. Councelor Peralta, Katie, can you put up the three staff recommended projects again?

So, we have the the linear park storm line, the ADA transition plan in the parks or other ADA transition plan projects and then the community security barricades. So, may I comment? Yeah. Um, so my preference would be to set aside the money on the two first two projects. Um, for sure the the full 231 on the barricades. No, the 115.

No, nothing on the barricades. ADA transition and the linear park. Um, and the reason for that is that I'm convinced that the linear park cost uh is going to be an ongoing cost that it would be better to just knock it out. Um, given the lack of funding for that and then the ADA transition plan, it's, you know, as has been pointed out, there's going to be several projects in there. So, getting started on that makes sense. Um, I'm skeptical about the about the million dollars moving the needle on the Third Street project to the extent that um is believed. So, I wouldn't put the money to that. Um, for now, I would probably not put the money to the barricades and would think about uh what to do with the remaining approximately 350 or 400,000. Those are my suggestions. Councelor Gary.

So, if I'm keeping track of stuff right, that leaves 35751. Is that if if you have the 948 and you dedicate the 350 from to the linear park storm lateral and the uh 249 to ADA transition plan holding account. You've got your the 350. I I' I I would say um parking that and working with staff as they could get through to capacity on parks projects starting with looking at what we can do at Kingwood um would be how I would find it useful way to finish that off.

Councelor Takowski. Mayor. Yeah.

I just wanted to clarify some things on the third street. I know Chris threw some back of the napkin math out there in his statement, but really the overall goal is to get to an 80% plus design to make you build grant eligible. So, anything you guys put towards that is progress towards that design and less general fund dollars you're going to put towards it down the road. um whether that's 100,000 or 500,000 or whatever that number is, but putting something towards that without getting wrapped around does it get you to x% or is the total design cost x amount of dollars is really the ask before you tonight is do you want to make that project a priority outside of your current funding model.

I personally think it's a good project to move forward because it affects the entire community and it affects ADA. um accesses when it's complete and it's also going to spur our business downtown. So I think it's a good project to consider and it's at some point it needs to get done before the infrastructure down town. Absolutely. Can uh question councelor Peralta. Thank you. Can that can that not be funded out of the special out of the district funds

out of urban renewal? So, we're actually currently in the process of trying to um uh analyze that. Sorry, I'm not feeling great tonight, so I'm not I'm 50% of my game. Um but with that said, uh just keep in mind there's a finite amount of funds in the urban renewal area of three 3.23.4 million. But if there was a need to put additional design funds into the project upfront to get it to the 80%, there could always be some sort of agreement put together that urban renewal gets paid back a portion of that down the road when the project's funded. I don't know, but there there might be creative ways to come up with that through a renewal.

Thank you, councelor Tulski. I'm going to go back to you if you are ready. If not, that's okay. Okay. I I would just share my uh reluctance to put some of these dollars towards that is because it just it just parks and waits for the rest of the money to come along. Um as opposed to doing all the effort that we have to do to sort of fully invest in that project. Um I'd like to see this us be able to accomplish stuff even on a long shorter timeline and smaller projects. We're still going to have to find a bunch of money to get to that point. So, can I ask? Yeah. Answer Towski.

So, when you were talking about propos a proposal to put this money toward the third street improvement, are you talking about a portion of it? Are you thinking the entirety of it? I would be fine with all of it, but I'd also be fine with a portion of it because I do think there's a couple things that sound like they're important to get done. Okay. So, we had 948751. Uh, the linear park is 350. Director Henry, is that correct? That's correct. That's what was requested. Yes.

Okay. So, I guess I mean the linear park to me seems like a something that needs to be taken care of. It be it's a continual cost that we continue to blindly pay because we're it we're going to have to pay it either way. And so it seems seems reasonable to fund that one. Although again, that's there's nothing exciting about that. It just keeps things moving. I I Well, okay, James, we could talk. Yeah. Yeah. Uh but I mean, it it would be nice to get the linear park taken care of. It would be nice to progress the third street project if we're going to if we're not going to put this in a reserve. Uh, and I would support the third street project in the linear park or the the sum of the sum of that.

Just be nice to kind of know a little bit more on the dollar figures for Third Street to know where we're headed, right?

I really would like to have a little bit more information to know whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense. Yeah, we are still um pinging ODOT regularly trying to get that estimate of the federalized what does it take to go from where we are now to the 100% design. Um and they are working on that. Um if there's additional um analysis that the council would like to be able to think about decisions, staff can do that. It's going to take some it's going to take a lift for us to do it. I'd have to parse out some things and all that. ODOT is only going to give us that cost to go from now to the end from Adams to Johnson. So, we'd have to pay extra for anything outside of that. But, if the council does desire additional information, um, if you let us know exactly roughly what you're looking for, we can do something like that.

Councilor Peralta. Thank you. So, just to understand, mayor, um, basically what we and and to kind of try and close the loop with staff, it seems like what we have is a design that will take us from one end of Third Street uh to Johnson on the other. Um, but we have the opportunity to phase that in uh section by section as we build it out. Correct. Um, yes, you can phase it. it. And as Heather mentioned, there's been discussion about, you know, there's trade-offs with phasing, but yes, you could phase it. So, if may I follow up? Yeah.

So, so to be clear, we we need based on the commitments we've already made for the federal grants and other grants. We we need to do the full design. I'd have to look at the so the appropriation has one sentence that's in what got adopted by Congress and I have to double check if it just says third street project or it says third street project from here to here. Okay. Um but so that got to double check but but but assuming that we have to do the full design we can still phase it in and and and you know let's say it's four phases we may it may take us 50 years to get to phase four.

Yes. and phase four might be the section that the mayor is talking about from whatever to Johnson. So the point being that we can we can functionally do a subset of the project in the time scale that we're talking about without necessarily completing the entire project. That's the point that I wanted to get to.

Yes. And as of right now, the way we have the 850, that'll take us as far as we can get um designwise. And then at that point, um we can also go through an analysis after that part's completed of what phasing could look like at that point. And you'd have some better ideas of the actual design costs for each section at that point. So you're going to have more information coming. So there's no requirement to cut the design phasing down at this time. Um you can continue moving forward with the entire length and then make decisions on the phasing at that point or we can do some some work as staff to try to get you some better ideas of some costs um what phasing could look like at this point. But I don't really want to send ODOT down too many rabbit holes right now. Um, I'd like them to focus when they're on the the part that we're having them lead for us, but if the council is desiring more analysis for different options, we can try to do that as staff.

I I feel like I I I'm not wanting to add complications. So, what what do you need from this body to move you closer to 80%. Yeah. To where you need to get to 80% to

Yeah. So, at this time, I would say if you're we need to figure out what the numbers are from ODOT, what they think it's going to take to get to the different points, and then we could give you a better idea. Okay, 850 gets us to maybe it's 70%. We and they're telling us we just need 300,000 more and we can get all the way to 80 or whatever it might be. It's hard for me to give those numbers because we're not managing the project per the IGA. ODOT has to do it. And so I'd want to wait for the numbers from them first to have an idea where we're at and then if the council desires to look at more options after hearing that, I'd be happy to go through all those with you.

Okay. So if I can make a suggestion to our body, I would suggest that we move on the linear park. we should answer the staff as far as whether or not we want to do the ADA uh as part of tonight's meeting or delay that and the third street comment uh idea as well as the barricade conversation for for later when we get more information because we need more information for Third Street. So, I think the two decision points are the ADA and then the linear park tonight. And then however we decide on those two, then that'll kind of determine how much money we have left on this stuff where there's more discussion to be had. Does that does that work for

And then we can come back to assess Kingwood King. We talk to Third Street. We can talk to your park ideas all we know what's left. Does that work for people? or we can just do linear and and leave all the the rest of the money. If I may, councelor Tokulski.

Yeah. What what you're proposing it's it's very reasonable. I I would say that putting the linear park in there is we're going to incur that spend whether we want to or not. So, we might as well just accept it. And I'd like to just accept it. Um the other thing though is that if we could just park the rest of it until we have a little bit more information, is it would council find that acceptable? And and the and to clarify the the debate, as the mayor pointed out, would be over park spending including Kingwood, the ADA, the barricades, and Third Street. And we'd figure out between those four projects where the remaining 600,000 is going to go. Good with that. Good with that. Yes.

Uh I think I'm on the outside of this thing. Um, I would say that we should probably invest in the eight barricades because I hate to say it's not if, it's when. And I think we're all going to be really upset if this was an option for us and we didn't take it with ARPA funds, which are, I guess, what the initial intent was for onetime projects. So, um I'm somebody that doesn't want to, you know, have a storm water issue continue to go, so I can get behind that, but um and I'm happy to park everything else.

So, your your proposal is I'd go for half of the barricades. put the barricades in and then decide what to do with the rest too. And and then that gives us half of that to to come back to Third Street or something else, some other some other project. Half the barricades and the linear. Is that correct? Yep. And and park the rest until we get information.

If I may, I understand I understand that you do have a concern and I share the concern. So I let's just agree on that. I do think that there might be other ways that you could do this. There are rental companies that rent 500 lb blocks of concrete. I don't know what those cost to transfer back and forth, but it seems like there could be more research done on what could be an economical uh opportunity. U I understand that yeah, this would be offtheshelf something that you can purchase and I don't think it's a bad idea. I just think that there are other ideas that we may also explore, but I just don't know that at this time. So, I'd ask for a little more exp exploration in that area. The the comment that the mayor made originally though was that we'd oftentimes reopen the streets fairly quickly and I could see, you know, with half the barricades we're talking about, you know, third in Baker and and third in Johnson is is probably the likelihood and obviously there's a lot of other entry points honestly within that. Um,

but I think that I don't know if there's other options that are easily as easily removable as these this option. We're looking at you, Chief W.

I I know. I'm just I'm I'm in deep in thought for just a Sorry about that. Um the to the to the point about using something like a jersey barrier or something as a barricade, the benefit of having these to something like that is that they are removable should we need access for other emergency responders to come to the area for some other reason. There's a fire, there's some other medical event where we need to transport people out. These are movable by an individual. One person with their little hand truck device can move these from one place to another. Whereas a jersey barrier, you're going to have to bring in heavy equipment and move those because they weigh, you know, 1,000 to,500 lb a piece I believe is what the weight of a jersey barrier, if not more. I guess it would depend on the size of the barrier that you brought in. Um, so your your ongoing cost for the setup and take down of those is going to be far greater than it would be for something like this.

Okay. May I ask a question, mayor? Absolutely. So, Chief Wood, it completely makes sense what you're saying. I understand I'm and I don't want to I don't want to take the entire council and everyone into a solution space because we'd be here all night. But there there seems to be some other ideas that we could throw out. I mean, have we would it be possible to contact the National Guard in town? I mean, you park a couple of Humvees perpendicular in the street. Would that I mean, sure, it looks like militaristic, but would that stop the the threat? Those are easily movable. That's not a That's not something that I would recommend. I know. I'm just throwing it out there.

Yeah. No, that's I I'm sure that we could um brainstorm a lot of different solutions or ideas. This is the one solution that is applicable not only to this location, but several other locations across the city. That's the the real benefit to this equipment is that if we need it for the air show, we can take it to the air show. If we want it for the farmers market, we can take it to the farmers market. If we had some other significant event in some other part of the city where we needed to restrict access for the safety of the people in that part of town or for the safety of responders in that part of town, this equipment could be transported and deployed anywhere in the city.

And we're talking about the eight, correct? Okay. So, so Oh, go ahead. One more follow-up question, please. And I know you can't completely answer this, Chief, but if we're purchasing eight of these units, u and we're expecting it to help out downtown, which it would. I mean, how how many streets could we actually block off like during alien days? How approximately eight would probably cover Third Street for the the entirety of Third Street like one end to the other. That wouldn't cover Fourth. that wouldn't have anything to deploy on some of the more critical side streets either. So, you'd still have access from the north and south.

16 won't cover every side street from every approach. Um, this is to cover the the main basically the the biggest potential problem streets, the ones that are immediately accessible off of three mile lane, off of the highway where we're most vulnerable for people to drive through and cause problems. Thank you.

Okay, so let's go back to a idea. It's not a motion. So idea is let's are we good about considering the barricades then eight barricades? Yes. And the rest is is it reasonable j for you to bring us back an idea on third street to get to 80%. Is it I mean I think

I think uh just knowing the speed at which ODOT moves and how long we took that IGA and then the ADA plan that you know you're waiting on answers on that. I'd recommend if you guys want to move forward with this this be for this upcoming fiscal year and sometime in the next fiscal year we bring back a work session that addresses the ADA holistically with updated information for ADA pair that with the pros plan so that's informed and not just a guess and then uh have an updated number from from ODOT at their current pace. Perfect. I'm good with that.

Yes. So, what I'm what I'm hearing is that we'll bring back eight of the barricades and the linear park for next year's budget, but the remainder amount we are going to leave for next year's discussion on the parks and the third street and the ADA. Yes. which is about 483,000

plus whatever all those projects that are currently ongoing will there they will then be able to be wrapped up. So all of those things that are ending this summer. So that will allow us to get a better figure once all of that is done and we have the final figures on those as well. So I'm in full support of that. I have what I need from this work session. Great. Yay. So thank you. Any further comments, questions? Thank you and thank you all of you for your patience and answers and you know listening to us. Okay, I'm going to adjourn at 7:30. Thank you.